ALZIRGHANI v. ALGABAH (2021)

The final judgment of dissolution on review comes to us with “the presumption of correctness,” so the former husband, as the appellant, bears the burden of demonstrating reversible error. Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979). The husband failed to include in the record a transcript of the hearing that led to the final judgment, so we are unable to address his argument that the trial court abused its discretion when it crafted the equitable distribution between the parties. See id. (“Without a record of the trial proceedings, the appellate court can not properly resolve the underlying factual issues so as to conclude that the trial court's judgment is not supported by the evidence or by an alternative theory. Without knowing the factual context, neither can an appellate court reasonably conclude that the trial judge so misconceived the law as to require reversal.”).

That leaves us with the former husband's contention that the judgment is facially deficient. Cf. Klette v. Klette, 785 So. 2d 562, 563 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (explaining “that the lack of a transcript is not fatal” where “reversible error is apparent from the face of the order on appeal”). However, the former husband failed to raise the deficiency with the trial court in a motion for rehearing, so even that issue is not preserved for our review. See Williams v. Williams, 152 So. 3d 702, 704 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (explaining that “where an error by the court appears for the first time on the face of a final order, a party must alert the court of the error via a motion for rehearing or some other appropriate motion in order to preserve it for appeal”).

Affirmed.

Per Curiam.

Winokur, Nordby, and Tanenbaum, JJ., concur.